Padded Armour

[FAVENTIANVS]

Thank you Robert!

So, the unit emblem (or whatever it was painted) was painted over felt? Or was it just a scutum cover to protect it while marching?

[caiusbeerquitius]

The 'v. Stokar' cited was Walter von Stokar of Köln, and since one of v.S's books was Spinnen Und Weben bei den Germanen, it is not unreasonable to assume he knew felt when he saw it!

Hi Mike!

- Kimmig states at the beginning of the article, that the whole shield has been covered in a lack-like substance for preservation. That was done before his investigation.

- As far as there is neither a material analysis nor a more recent investigation (the one we talk about is from 1941) of the shield, I am, as with so many other theories and judgements that old, very suspicious. That is, why I was talking about an assumption. Until the shield is published with the background of a modern investigation, it is quite difficult to judge wheter both, Kimmig, and v. Stokar were right: It was never published how thick the layer was, how worn it was, what effects the preservation liquid might have had on wool etc. p.p.

Remember: With S. James's publication of the Dura shields, we were able to see how many of the statements of the original excavators concerning material, construction etc. were wrong. They were from the same time.

Thus: IMO not a proven fact.

I do NOT want to say that the shield was not felt covered. I just want to say that sometimes it might be more reasonable to be very careful with what is a 'proven fact'.

Therefore two tools are very helpful:
1.: The historical-critical method
2.: Occam's razor
Both of them should be applied before a fact is stated.

Hence we get the sentence: "The Fayum scutum most probably was covered in felt", and hence I'd say: No, Dan is not right with:

The Fayum scutum was covered in felt,

Cheers!

[mcbishop]

2.: Occam's razor

Application of Occam's Razor means that it is felt! Some items certainly have received strange treatments over the years, but I would be careful before underestimating the observational abilities of the likes of Kimmig and v. Stokar. A modern aplication of felt would be difficult to mistake for an ancient covering.

Just a pity the question can't be resolved by looking at the shield itself (which is missing, so far as I am aware.)

Mike Bishop

[Tarbicus]

Just a pity the question can't be resolved by looking at the shield itself (which is missing, so far as I am aware.)

When was it last seen, does anybody know?

Cheers.

[John M McDermott]

I am still real interested to know what "Libyan hide" is.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Application of Occam's Razor means that it is felt!

Yes, if we look at the article.
No, if we look at the argument:

it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproven assumptions

I see noo proof in the argument, just a statement.

I do not want to underestimate the abilities of Kimmig and v. Stokar. I just think, that it should be checked back with modern methods, before an absolute statement is made. If we are lucky, someone will sooner or later find the shield in the deep vaults of the egyptian museum in Cairo.

However, I think each of us made his point clear.

[Caballo]

I understand from reproductions that the tomb of Severius Acceptus in Istanbul shows a (probable) subarmalis, with quilting.
Does anyone have a picture? Can't see it on the imagebase.

Cheers

Britannicus

[mcbishop]

I understand from reproductions that the tomb of Severius Acceptus in Istanbul shows a (probable) subarmalis, with quilting.
Does anyone have a picture?

Well that's one interpretation, but I would have said that 'probable' was putting it too strongly. I don't have a photo, but here's the drawing from B&C1:



Mike Bishop

[Daniel S Peterson]

I saw it in Cairo but it was something like 20 years ago. It was laying flat, close to ground level in an unlit case. It was hard to see much. I recall Peter Connolly painted it in one of his books, complete with patches of felt. Perhaps he had better light. In his text he confirms it is "felt".

Before everyone starts covering their shields with felt however, I would say that this is most probably only a base layer for applying a sheet of rawhide. When roofing a house with stiff tarpaper, a kind of felt is laid down first which is supposed to make the tarpaper last longer. I could see the same thing making sense on a shield.

Felt probably does not survive long in a wet European type archaeological site for it is only compressed hairs held together with a binding agent. It could be excavated and not even recognized as woven fabric would.

I do not think there is any doubt it was used extensively througout the Roman world, and I suspect if all the cloth fragments recovered in more arid places were to be reexamined, we will find that a number of them are felt. I recall something mentioned in Simon James Dura Europas book about a "cap" that may have been felt.

I believe "Libyan Hide" may be the ancient name for a very high quality goatskin from that region known later as "Morrocco Leather". If impregnated with fat, it would become a waterproof cover for a felt "subarmallis".

Dan

[Caballo]

Thanks , Mike for he picture of Severius.

The implications of the other equipment (helmet greaves, shield, sword) are presumably that this is what he would have worn in the field. No other body armour is shown.

If it is not a sub-armalis, I am wondering what the other possibilities could be:-
- Composite armour?
-Padded "doublet" worn as body armour?
-Leather armour?
-?? :?

Cheers

Britannicus

[Daniel S Peterson]

The armor of Severius appears to be exactly what we have been discusing on the "new Marine gravestone thread": An extremely short molded cuirass with attached Pteurges. Compare this with the the Louvre Praetorian, officers on Trajan's column, etc. This for of armor may look odd to the modern eye, but to the ancient Romans obviously did not have the same inhibitions towards "military fashion" as some of us do.

Back to quilted subarmallis, it is well-nigh impossible to determine with any degree of certainty whether quilting or metallic scales or lames are being represented by a sculptor.

As for quilted padding being easier to wash, this does not appear to have been much of a consideration in the medieval times this kind of garment has been documented, as many descriptions say that the padding was no more than straw. The DRB writer was suggesting that the army of his time RETURN to the "old Roman" system of wearing the high quality felt subarmallis under mail because not only was it effective under armor, but it was an armor in its own right. We might assume then that the typical padding of his time was the straw or lint filled quilted linen known to be used in the Medieval era.

[John M McDermott]

Let's examine some of the felt and leather arguments closely.

1. The Romans cared nothing for laundry, or by implication, cleanliness. How well does this stand up?

2. The Fayum shield was covered in felt. That could be, but it wasn't a subarmalis.

3. Felt clothing was used in other cultures. Probably the best argument. However, was there a felt subarmalis used by other cultures?

4. DRB talks about felt and Libyan hide. Tantalizing, but he gives us absolutely no definition of Libyan hide. All we can do is speculate: "It was Morrocon leather." Why not just leather? Libyan hide=Morrocan leather=leather. There is no logical proof here, merely speculation of the grandest sort.

These are not strong arguments in the favor of a felt and leather subarmalis.

I originally thought that linen was a strange material to make armor out of. And yet, the Greeks constructed curaisses of it. Why not leather? Why not hardened felt? Maybe they did, but have we found one? On page 81 of Connolly's book is a picture of a sculpture he interprets as a linen quilted curaiss used in conjunction with scale armor. Did Connolly misinterpret this? Maybe. But maybe his fallibility extends to other things as well? While I am on it, why not tunics of leather? Paenula? Sagum? Toga? It makes a lot more sense to make a Paenula of waterproof "Morrocan leather" than it does of wool. Are there any?

The problem with the felt and leather argument is that it is constructed on speculation and little else.

[Daniel S Peterson]

When a Roman historian recommends that the Army return to felt subarmallis which it had used in its heyday because of its better defensive qualities (than whatever was being used in the late empire--linen???), this is probably the best information we could hope for. This would seem to imply that it might be okay to use linen for a late impression, but cerntainly not for an early one (Unless the Roman historian is lying, and there is no reason to suggest this). For he specifically states the felt subarmallis was used in the earlier Roman Army.

We know from several accounts that padded linen armor/armor padding was often filled with straw, which strongly suggests it was not washed.

Felt on the other hand is often exposed to water, and can be washed out. A good example is the felt "slouch hat" or "cowboy hat".

Felt rubbing against metal would last far longer than linen, the small threads quickly wearing away and exposing the lint filling. The answer seems very clear. In the early Empire when the army was lavished with the best possible equipment, then the more expensive and durable felt subarmmalis was used. When the army became something more resembling a poorly equipped peasant conscript army, then cheap linen padding was used, exactly like the peasant conscript armies that were to follow, and in which padded linen is documented.

Yes, I believe there are accounts of leather paenula, probably much the equivalent of a raincoat. Soldiers may have had them, but if you could only carry one, leather or wool, the wool one would be more practical. A very good wool paenula, in which the natural oil of the wool has not been washed out, is good at repelling water, though not as good as a fat impregnated leather one.

And now to a reenactment this weekend.

[John M McDermott]

This would be definitive if this is what DRB said. However, it is not. What he did say remains obscure.

[Antonius Lucretius]

Felt making is a very, very ancient industry in Turkey which makes me suspect that, as what happened with the "turkish" (roman) baths, it existed long before the Ottoman's invasion.
Felt is packed wool or hair. You can pack it loose or tight. When packed loose you make slippers with it and when packed tight you make quite rigid XXXXX cowboy hats that reach obscene prices and last about a lifetime, rain or shine. In this case it's actually beaver felt, but the method of manufacture is similar: animal fibers --wool of fur-- packed together by pounding.

If a type of subarmalis was made of felt it was probably loose packed and sewn between two layers of linen, much like a mattress --I mean an old style wool mattress. Or a futon.
Another solution would be the inside layer made of linen and the outside made of leather. Supple leather of course.

Loden: Correct me if I'm wrong but I've read somewhere that loden was a mixture of wool and rabbit or hare fur.

The Arlon relief definitely shows segmentata shoulder plates, as very clearly indicated on the third trooper from the left, partially missing. In this case the plates are very clearly shown and can not in any be confused with a fold of a shoulder cape type of mailshirt. They do have long sleeves in the gallic fashion and they also have celtic swords, BTW.
What sticks out of their armpits are pteryges...Attached to a more than probable subarmalis.

I think the medieval gambeson/gambison/aketon/jack/vambasium was very much like, if not completely similar, to the subarmalis apart for the use of cotton (aketon is from the arabic al godon = cotton) which was it seems an expensive commodity in the ancient world.